Im actually really embarassed for her. I cant wait to vote for Dick Blumenthal, I really dont like Linda McMahon, ugh!
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 7:09 PM
WILMINGTON, Del. -- Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."
The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons.
Coons is a county executive nominated by the Democrats for the seat held for years by Vice President Joe Biden. O'Donnell, with strong tea party support, burst into the national spotlight by winning the Republican primary over a longtime GOP congressman.
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism - O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" - but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.
He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.
"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.
Both candidates suggested that the exchange showed the other didn't understand the Constitution.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."
The relationship of government and religion continues to be debated in American law. Many argue that the First Amendment's reference to religion involves the establishment of any particular religion, an important concern to the American colonists, not a ban on all involvement between religion and government.
O'Donnell's comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, created a stir in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise."
During the debate, O'Donnell argued that Coons' views on teaching of theories other evolution showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Coons said evolution was science, creationism a religious doctrine.
O'Donnell upset Delaware's Republican establishment last month with her victory in the primary, and former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove has predicted she will cost the party a Senate seat.
Money has been pouring into her campaign from across the country - she raised nearly $4 million in just over a month through the end of September - but she has recently criticized the Republican establishment for not spending more to help.
I am speechless.
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 7:09 PM
WILMINGTON, Del. -- Republican Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.
Coons responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."
She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"
Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."
The controversy was the latest to befall O'Donnell in a race where she trails badly in the polls against Coons.
Coons is a county executive nominated by the Democrats for the seat held for years by Vice President Joe Biden. O'Donnell, with strong tea party support, burst into the national spotlight by winning the Republican primary over a longtime GOP congressman.
The subject of religion and the law came up during their debate at Widener University Law School as O'Donnell criticized Coons for saying that teaching creationism in public school would violate the Constitution.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism - O'Donnell used the term "intelligent design" - but that under the "indispensable principle" of separation of church and state "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
He said the separation of church and state was one of a number of "settled pieces of constitutional law" worked out through years of legal development including Supreme Court decisions. He said a woman's right to abortion was another.
He noted again the First Amendment's ban on establishment of religion.
"That's in the First Amendment?" she said, smiling.
Both candidates suggested that the exchange showed the other didn't understand the Constitution.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."
The relationship of government and religion continues to be debated in American law. Many argue that the First Amendment's reference to religion involves the establishment of any particular religion, an important concern to the American colonists, not a ban on all involvement between religion and government.
O'Donnell's comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, created a stir in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise."
During the debate, O'Donnell argued that Coons' views on teaching of theories other evolution showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Coons said evolution was science, creationism a religious doctrine.
O'Donnell upset Delaware's Republican establishment last month with her victory in the primary, and former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove has predicted she will cost the party a Senate seat.
Money has been pouring into her campaign from across the country - she raised nearly $4 million in just over a month through the end of September - but she has recently criticized the Republican establishment for not spending more to help.
I am speechless.
Aisha - formerly known as randschicka
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
801 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
360 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
244 Views
Now there's an answer 
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
341 Views
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
341 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
221 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
233 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
202 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM
89 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
323 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
185 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote.
- 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM
187 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
318 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
313 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
237 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
234 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to
- 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM
245 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM*
- 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM
131 Views
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
340 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
- 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
187 Views
It is on youtube
- 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM
239 Views
Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM
244 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM
216 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
190 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
194 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
280 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
218 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
281 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
218 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
284 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
283 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
195 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
236 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
250 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
193 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
209 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM
69 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
160 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS
- 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM
192 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs.
- 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM
193 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say
- 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM
191 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM
80 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM
77 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake.
- 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM
183 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
171 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
173 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
195 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. 
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
82 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
82 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
171 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
172 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
208 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes.
- 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM
174 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
208 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
167 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
173 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
189 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
172 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
183 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
185 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
77 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
179 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say
- 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM
175 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
273 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true
- 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM
176 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM
67 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
223 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
198 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point
- 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM
307 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
301 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
192 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
194 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM*
- 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM
86 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look.
- 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM
282 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
78 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
82 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
167 Views